September 8, 2009

... 84 per cent admitt[ed] to having sex just to ensure a quiet life or to bargain for household chores. One woman said: "I have sex to relieve the boredom because it's easier than fighting. Plus it gives me something to do."

... "I slept with a couple of guys because I felt sorry for them."

... [N]early one in 10 women admitted to "having sex for presents". Others said: "He bought me a nice dinner", "he spent a lot of money on me early on", "he showed me he had an extravagant lifestyle".

And rather than love or romance, for many women sex is just about fun....

When I read stuff like this I have to wonder if these women have never had an orgasm.

The mind boggles.

OTOH, we've known for a long time that women are not *visual*, right? So while a really attractive guy is noticeably attractive and sexy it doesn't generally involve a physical response until personal spaces intersect... right?

I cannot believe this. I spent many years when I was younger believing just this kind of nonsense only to realize that it's not true. I've since met many women who claim they're very sexual so much so that I'm the one who ends up red-faced in conversation, not them. At first this strikes me as an anti-feminist argument. Is it? Or is it a feminist argument? I can't keep the sides straight anymore.

Let's take statistics, twist them around and come up with an inane conclusion that will SHOCK YOU! (And make you buy our book.)

So what if women, in general, don't find the majority of men they see as sexually attractive; they do see a minority of men as very sexually attractive and that's what matters.

I'd also wager that every woman who has had sex with any frequency has, at one time or another, had sex just to shut a guy up. But there isn't a chance in hell that that's the only reason they have sex.

But why let the obvious get in the way of a good headline?

PS. The vast majority of the mature, 40ish, white male engineers I know are married. (Most the divorced men I know aren't engineers. Just saying.)

(Almost like the girl who has just said yes to the loverwho begged her, so many weeks, and she brings him astonishedto the garden gate and, reluctant, he walks away,giddy with joy; and then, amid this new parting,a step disturbs her; she waits; and her glance in its fullnesssinks totally into a stranger's: her virgin glancethat endlessly comprehends him, the outsider, who was meant for her;the wandering other, who eternally was meant for her.Echoing, he walks by.) That is how, always, you lost:never as one who possesses, but like someone dyingwho, bending into the moist breeze of an evening in March,loses the springtime, alas, in the throats of the birds.

So while a really attractive guy is noticeably attractive and sexy it doesn't generally involve a physical response until personal spaces intersect... right?

Also, are they saying it is it just bunk that women are more interested in some sort of emotional connection before wanting to have sex? This article was rather thin, so you can't see what questions they asked or anything like that.

Incidentally, I find the claim that "[m]ost men find most women at least somewhat sexually attractive" to be complete rubbish. I don't know a man for whom that would be true unless, by most, you mean models and actresses in their late teens and twenties.

Sexual desire and passion, and increasing levels of pleasure while doing it, are merely incentives for people to exchange that procreative genetic material, otherwise the human race would have died out millenia ago.

Sex necessarily involves the use of reproductive organs. If the main "point" of sex were pleasure, then it would be done with such non-reproductive body parts like elbows and shins.

That's not to say that sex does not or should not be pleasurable, merely that it is not the "main point" of it. This is true from a purely Darwinist perspective or from a religious one.

Indeed, the fact that there are (let's admit it) so many unattractive and downright butt-ugly people in the world (and therefore the result of people having sex with unattractive people) is pretty strong proof in itself that pleasure (whether the pleasure of physical attraction or the pleasure of the act) is not the driving force in human sexuality. The compulsion to perpetuate the species is the driving force.

exchange of procreative genetic material. Exchange? I've been ripped off.is pretty strong proof in itself that pleasure (whether the pleasure of physical attraction or the pleasure of the act) is not the driving forceIf it didn't feel good, would men be chasing women to do it? Young guys don't fear death.

"I have sex to relieve the boredom because it's easier than fighting. Plus it gives me something to do."

Am I the only one who thinks this is a pretty good answer? And an honest one? It sure is a lot easier than fighting, and who among us has not--at some point--sought sex mainly because they had nothing else to do for a while?

"This movie sucks. I'm bored. Let's go home and fuck."

"Man, this party is a drag. Let's go get naked."

"Another health care speech? Oh, shit. Sweetie, can you come in here please? I need some help on something."

This article contradicts itself. It says 84% of women have sex in order not to have a quiet life or to bargain for household chores. Then at the end the article says for many women "sex is just about fun."

Well, which is it? For fun or to have your partner to take out the garbage?

The upshot is that men tend to view sex as an end, namely, a form of hedonic consumption, whereas women more likely view sex as a means of producing "income" for the consumption of other goods.

The data would imply an imbalance exists between the sexes in the supply and demand of interested heterosexual sexual partners.

Logically, women's lower relative attraction to men should result in a higher implicit "price" for female sexual companionship.

If women are less attracted to men, and as a result of that supply shift, men on average are willing to pay a higher "price" for carnal knowledge, economically speaking, is it any wonder that mixed motives for sexual participation would predominate amongst women?

I also do not buy that most men find most women sexually attractive. We would have sex with most of them, as long as nobody found out, but that is different. It's not attraction, it's more like government cheese; if they are giving it, out I want mine. We are attracted to the sex itself. This last point may be true for both sexes.

Most women I've been with, most of the time, were eager to have sex once they decided to do it. Pleasure was what they were looking for at those times. There was no evidence they were thinking dismal thoughts like "maybe he'll take out the trash." These were women I knew well enough -- wives, regular girlfriends -- to know they weren't feigning interest.

I've seldom had enough money at any one time to use that as a lure. Whatever CEOs or football players are getting, I've never gotten. The housework thing is another story though. If a guy does some vacuuming, his chances of getting laid increase measurably.

But if the woman I was with didn't want to have sex, we didn't have it. I can think of only a few times where a woman gave in to my obvious desire to have sex despite not being in the mood. Those memories actually bother me a lot, and I wish in every case I had just said "never mind" because it's kind of embarrassing to think about having sex that way. If they were thinking, "Okay, if it'll shut you up, here, take me," then it was a mistake.

I didn't have too many one-night stands, and most of those were when I was young. I believe most of those women actually wanted to do it--alcohol and other substances might have played a part in their decisions--but since I never got to know them very well, I could be wrong. I doubt any of them were in love with me. They might have been thinking love could develop, but mostly I got the feeling they were just out for a good time.

I do think it's true that much of the time, women are as pleased by affection as they are by sex. So, naturally, there is a lot more affection than there is sex, especially as the years go by. It seems rude for a man to try to insist on exchanging affection for sex. Just hug and squeeze the one you love. It feels good all around.

Indeed, the fact that there are (let's admit it) so many unattractive and downright butt-ugly people in the world (and therefore the result of people having sex with unattractive people) is pretty strong proof in itself that pleasure (whether the pleasure of physical attraction or the pleasure of the act) is not the driving force in human sexuality.

I would draw the opposite conclusion.

First of all, I don't think there are a lot of truly "butt-ugly" people out there. Not everyone's a 10, but there are more 10s than there are 1's, especially if you're talking about people in their prime procreative years.

But even granting your point, "butt-ugly" people have the same craving for sexual pleasure as supposedly attractive people do. I'm sure a lot of long-term relationships and families form because two people deemed unattractive by some find each other and give each other orgasms as fabulous as any one might find among the beautiful people. Don't forget, it's often done in the dark, and under the influence. The visuals can be conjured up in other ways, especially through the imagination. And that's why the human race keeps going.

"I also do not buy that most men find most women sexually attractive. We would have sex with most of them, as long as nobody found out, but that is different."

There's a saying . . . and I hope I don't offend the good Professor by relating it here, but it's spot on.

"If pussy grew on trees, all men would be forest rangers."

In other words, women shouldn't get the big head (pun intended) about men wanting to have sex with them. As far as pure sexual desire goes, they're just as interchangeable as light bulbs. (Not the new environmentally friendly ones though. They're more trouble than they're worth.)

Sex is a physical activity that animals also do from libido drives. We Humans are spiritual persons that also need the intimacy that comes from talking truthfully and sharing together. That intimacy leads us to each want to give to the other the sexual pleasures that are more of that same sharing. The women quoted in these articles must not respect their men enough to want to share anything with them.

If this is true, it makes the question of why women dress to be so sexually attractive sort of interesting and intriguing. If women are not so hot to have sex, then is their dress a way of acquiring influence over men? Discombobulating the male thought process? Is it a peculiar and unacknowledged form of sexual harrassment? I know that I can't look at the most carefully and deliberately deployed parts of women's bodies (e.g., the extensive decolletage that is routinely displayed) without entering in to a mental space that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

I found the article as a whole to be rather thin; it didn't give me a complete picture of the people, the range of questions and the 'wide range' of answers given. I also wasn't sure about the sample - 1000 women interviewed from where? Who are they?

The particular study mentioned at the end showing some 'financial motives' was done among college students (in a separate survey, I guess?). Anyway, not from the pool of a 1000, I suppose.

That's something important to realize - a lot of non-clinical psych studies with adults are conducted with college students, because professors have ready access to them as a subject pool on campus. How well the results from a bunch of college students can then apply to the rest of the population... that's another question.

Also, one of the authors of the book, David Buss is an evolutionary psychologist. He's committed to a certain viewpoint on these things. I also wonder - did he really center the book on one study of a 1000 women... there's got to be more than that.

Bender, you're far too binary with your analysis. The intense pleasure of the orgasm is indeed the point... it's the genes' way of ensuring that their host organism undertakes the act which ensures their long-term survival. Actually having and raising children costs a lot of time and energy for an adult. The act of mating itself takes a certain amount of energy and resources.

All of that energy spent reproducing and raising the offspring is energy that can't be spent by an animal to provide food and shelter for itself and meet its other needs. If it weren't for the pleasure of orgasm, why would any animal expend all that energy? It's decidedly irrational from the individual animal's point of view. We humans have evolved a sense of family and tradition and so forth, and so have more reasons to reproduce, even if the act weren't pleasurable. But there sure would be a lot less kids (little gametes) running around if sex didn't feel so good.

So yes, from the animal's standpoint, the orgasm IS the primary purpose of sex. The reproduction portion is only important from the genes' point of view.

I consider myself pretty sexual. I don't mind saying I "take care of myself" somewhat regularly (though probably not on a dude's scale) and like looking at pornography.

I like men, their bodies, etc. But it's true--most of you just aren't really sexually attractive in my opinion. I don't mean any offense. Maybe I'm just a not-so-closeted lesbian. But women's bodies just seem naturally sexual (unless they are excessively obese or thin). But men's bodies, I'm afraid, at least in our times, require "work".

We are not getting the physical exercise and strength testing that would occur in a more natural lifestyle. That doesn't affect women too much in terms of physical attractiveness, but it's crucial for men.

I'm sorry guys, but unless you have muscles (biceps, shoulders, pecs and please, please don't forget legs)--you really aren't much to LOOK at. That's not to say you don't have loads of other stuff to offer.

But then you ARE relying on things like love, which doesn't really get anyone in the mood after a couple of years, so then it just becomes good will OR self-interest (which could never do it for me).

And while I certainly would think most ill of any woman who had sex for presents--what's the point in all the opprobrium? Let's be honest, as some commenters have pointed out, I think men are typically having sex to relieve the "itch". It's not love. And often, sexual attractiveness is not absolutely required either. Is this really appreciably more respectable?